Midrash su Levitico 7:32

1) Or, (this binyan av) adduces (the tenufah-haramah identity) only for what is similar to it (the miluim [investiture] ram [viz.: Shemoth 29:27]). (That is,) just as this (investiture offering) is a sturdy, two-year-old ram and requires bread, so (the binyan av applies only to a thanksgiving ram [similar to the miluim ram]), sturdy, two years old, and requiring bread. Whence do I derive (that it applies also to an offering that is) "sturdy" and does not require bread (i.e., a peace-offering ram); to one that is "soft" and requires bread (i.e., a one-year-old thanksgiving lamb); and to one that is soft and does not require bread (a peace-offering lamb)? — until you include "cattle, lambs, and goats" (that obtained at the miluim)? From (Shemoth 29:28): "For it is terumah and terumah shall it be from the children of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, their terumah to the L–rd" — to include all of them (in the tenufah-haramah identity).

1) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: A (Cohein) tvul yom (one who immersed in the daytime, and becomes clean at sunset) came and said to (another) Cohein: Give me of the meal-offering (of an Israelite) to eat it (tonight). The Cohein: Now if in a place (i.e., an instance) where you are "strong," in your sin-offering, (i.e., a Cohein who is liable for a sin-offering may bring it at any priestly watch and take its priestly portions), I have pushed you away from the sin-offering of an Israelite (A tvul yom does not share in it, viz. Vayikra 6:19), then in a place where you are "weak," in your meal-offering, (Even a clean Cohein may not eat his own meal-offering, it being entirely burnt), does it not follow that I should push you away from the meal-offering of an Israelite today (when you are a tvul yom and unfit to sacrifice the meal-offering of an Israelite)! The tvul yom: Why would you push me away from the sin-offering of an Israelite? Because you are "strong" in your own sin-offering. Would you then push me away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, when you are "weak" in your own meal-offering? The Cohein (Vayikra 7:9): "To the Cohein that sacrifices (a meal-offering), to him shall it be" — Come, sacrifice (when you are clean) and eat!

2) If all (the pieces that require tenufah) became tamei and (only) one of them were left, whence is it derived that it requires tenufah? From (the redundant) "the breast" (Shemoth 29:30). "to wave it" — even one kidney. I might think that he can wave (one piece) and then another; it is, therefore, written "a waving" (of all the pieces together) and not "wavings."

2) The tvul yom: If not (i.e., if you do not give me of the meal-offering), give me to eat of the sin-offering. The Cohein: Now, if in a place where I am "weak," in my meal-offering, I have pushed you away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, then in a place where I am strong, in my sin-offering, does it not follow that I should push you away from the sin-offering of an Israelite! The tvul yom: No, if you have pushed me away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, it is because I am "weak" in my own meal-offering. Would you then push me away from the sin-offering of an Israelite, when I am strong in my own sin-offering? The Cohein (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it." Come, sacrifice a sin-offering (when you are clean), and eat!

3) How does he execute (tenufah)? He (a Cohein) brings the fats (from the slaughtering site) to the hand of the owner, the two kidneys and the lobe of the liver above them, and the breast and shok above them. and if there were bread (as in the terumah of the thanksgiving loaves and the ram of the Nazirite and of the miluim), he places the bread above them.) And he (a second Cohein, places his hand under the hand of the owner and) brings it forward and back, and up and down, as it is written (Shemoth 24:27): "which was waved and which was lifted." Tenufah was in the east (of the altar), and hagashah (presentation at the corner of the altar, in the instance of the meal-offering of the omer and the meal-offering of rancor) in the west. Tenufah preceded hagashah (viz. Bamidbar 5:25). "before the L–rd" — in the east.

3) The tvul yom: And if not, give me to eat of the breast and shok of the peace-offerings. The Cohein: Now if in a place where you are "strong," in holy of holies (offerings), where all (that is eaten of them) is yours, I have pushed you away, then in a place where you are "weak," in lower order offerings, where you have only the breast and the shok, does it not follow that I should push you away! The tvul yom: Now if you have pushed me away from holy of holies, where I am "weak," not being permitted to feed my wives and servants of them, would you then push me away from lower order offerings, where I am "strong," being permitted to feed my wives and slaves of them? The Cohein (Vayikra 7:14): "To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be." Come and sprinkle (when you are clean) and eat!

4) Whence is it derived that the breast and the shok do not revert to Aaron and his sons until after the smoking of the fats? From (Bamidbar 5:31) "And he shall smoke the cheilev upon the altar" followed by "and the breast shall be for Aaron and for his sons."

4) The tvul yom left with his (unavailing) "weaknesses and strengths," an onein (a mourner) on his right hand, and a mechussar kippurim ("one lacking atonement") on his left, (these, too, being "pushed away" by these verses.)

5) If the devoted portions became tamei or were lost, I might think that the shok would not revert to Aaron and to his sons; it is, therefore, written "it shall be" (in any event). And thus is it written in respect to the sons of Eli (I Samuel 2:15): "Even before they would smoke the fats, the Cohein's youth would come and say to the slaughterer: Give flesh for roasting to the Cohein. He will not take from you cooked meat but only raw." What is written of them? (I Samuel 2:17) "And the sin of the youths was very great before the L–rd, for the men cheapened the offering of the L–rd."

6) (Vayikra 7:32): "the right shok": This tells me only of the shok, that it must be the right shok. Whence do I derive the same (that it must be the right) for the shoulder of chullin (non-consecrated food, [Devarim 18:3])? From "shall you give." Whence do I derive the same for (the shoulder of) consecrated food (the ram of the Nazirite)? From "terumah." "from the sacrifices of your peace-offerings": This is as we have said (Chapter 15:9): To include communal peace-offerings as requiring tenufah after shechitah.

7) (Vayikra 7:32) ("And the right shok shall you give as an offering to the Cohein) from the sacrifices of your (plural) peace-offerings" — to include the sacrifices of communal peace-offerings (the two Atzereth lambs) as requiring tenufah after shechitah.

7) Whence is it derived that if he (the Cohein) is tamei at the time of sprinkling (of the blood) and clean at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share (in the flesh)? From "He who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev of the sons of Aaron (to him shall be the right shok as a portion.")

8) But (why do I need a verse for this?) Can I not derive it a fortiori, viz.: If individual peace-offerings, which do not require tenufah living, require it after shechitah, then communal peace-offerings, which require tenufah living, how much more so do they require it after shechitah!

8) Abba Shaul says: whence is it derived that if he is clean at the time of sprinkling (of the blood) and tamei at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share in the flesh? From "He who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev of the sons of Aaron."

9) (The verse is needed, for) this could be countered by the guilt-offering of the leper, which, though requiring tenufah living, does not require it after shechitah, so that it would be no cause for wonder if communal peace-offerings, which though they require tenufah living would not require tenufah after shechitah. So that "from the sacrifice of your (plural) peace-offerings is needed to include communal peace-offerings as requiring tenufah after shechitah.

9) R. Shimon says: "He who offers (midrashically: he who acknowledges the offering, etc.) of the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev": Whoever i.e., any Cohein) who does not acknowledge the priestly service (as having been commanded by G d) has no share in the (gifts of the) priesthood. This tells me only of (not acknowledging) these alone. Whence do I derive the same for (not acknowledging) pourings and mixings (of oil), breaking into pieces (of meal-offerings), saltings, tenufoth, hagashoth, taking of fistfuls (of meal-offerings), "pinchings" (of birds), receivings (of blood), sprinklings, administrations of the sotah's draught, the breaking of the heifer's neck, the cleansing of the leper, and the lifting of the hands (in the priestly blessing) within (the sanctuary) and outside it? (Whence is it derived that he has no share in the gifts of the priesthood?) From "of the sons of Aaron" — (to include) every service that is relegated to the sons of Aaron.

10) I might think (if it were not specified otherwise) that the entire sacrifice required tenufah. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:30) "cheilev." This tells me only of cheilev. Whence do I include the breast? From (Vayikra 7:30) "breast." "he shall bring" includes the fat-tail." "the fire-offerings of the L–rd" — to include the two kidneys. "shall he bring it": to include the lobe of the liver.

10) And R. Shimon was wont to say (Malachi 1:16) "Who among you, too, would (not) close doors (the doors of the Temple) and not kindle My altar for nothing, says the L–rd of hosts. And I desired no gift from your hand." There are two things which serve the body and which people do not desist from doing and for which they do not take payment. The two things which a man asks of his neighbor — Light this candle for me and close the door after me — which people do not desist from doing and for which they do not take payment, you did not do them for Me for nothing (i.e., I rewarded you for them). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If things for which people do not take payment, you did not do for Me for nothing, things for which they do take payment, how much more so (will you be richly reworded for them)!

11) We have (thus) learned that they all require tenufah. Whence do we derive the same for terumah (lifting up and down)? From "the shok (from knee to thigh) of terumah." This tells me only of the shok for lifting and all for tenufah. Whence do I derive that what applies to the one applies to the others? From (Shemoth 29:27): "And you shall consecrate the breast of waving and the shok of lifting, which was waved and which was lifted." Let it not be written "which was waved and it was lifted." (i.e., it sounds redundant). But it is (written as) a binyan av (see Hermeneutical Principle 13) — whatever requires tenufah (waving) requires haramah (lifting) and whatever requires haramah requires tenufah.